ANCIENT ITALIAN SCULPTURE.
Ancient Italian sculpture was essentially Greek in its spirit, and originated with the Etruscans, a very ancient people in Italy. There are traces of an Oriental influence in the art of Etruria—a suggestion of the sculpture of Egypt and Assyria, just as there is in Greek archaic art; but the real feeling and spirit of it is Greek, and must have been borrowed from Greece in some way.
The different theories and opinions about the Etruscans and their origin do not concern us here; we have to do only with their sculpture as it is seen in the remnants of it now in existence. In the beginning the Etruscans made their statues of clay; marble was very rarely used. Later on they learned the art of working in bronze, and carried it to great perfection. Their bronze works were so numerous that in B.C. 295 Fulvius Flaccus is said to have carried away two thousand statues from Volsinii alone. Some of their figures were colossal, but the greater number were statuettes.
There are some Etruscan bronzes remaining in the museums of Europe. The Etruscans always were copyists rather than original artists; but they copied such excellent things, and did it so well, that their productions are by no means to be despised, and the skill which they acquired caused their bronze and metal work to be highly valued, even in Athens itself.
The Etruscans were physically a more luxurious people than the Greeks, as may be seen in the pictures of them which still remain in the tombs of Corneto and other places. They gave much attention to luxury of living, and the richly decorated goblets and other articles of table furniture which they made may be seen in the Vatican and British Museum, while the delicate and artistic gold work of their personal ornaments is still much admired and copied diligently.
The Romans as a people were patrons of art rather than artists. They seem from very early days to have admired the plastic art of other nations; but of Romans themselves there were very few sculptors; their artists were architects of grand structures rather than workers in the lesser monuments of artistic skill and genius. At first, as we have said, they relied upon the Etruscans, who built their earliest temples and adorned them with sculptures, and the first record which we have of Greek artists working in Rome gives us the names of Damophilus and Gorgasus, who decorated the temple of Ceres with paintings and sculptures. This temple was consecrated in B.C. 493; if its adornment was of the same date, the knowledge of Greek art was brought to Rome at a very early period—at least fifty-six years before the completion of the Parthenon.
But the means by which the whole Roman people were made familiar with the beauties of Greek art are to be found in another direction. It was not the building of their own temples, or any work done by Greek artists in Rome, that gave the Romans their love and appreciation for art; it was rather the art spoils seized by their victorious leaders and brought home to adorn and beautify every portion of the Eternal City. In B.C. 212 Marcellus carried to Rome the spoils he had taken at Syracuse; he exhibited them in his triumphal procession, and afterward consecrated them in the temple of Honor and Valor which he built. From this time it was the fashion to bring home all the choice things that Roman conquerors could seize, and the number of beautiful objects thus gained for Rome was marvellous.
When Flaminius defeated Philip of Macedon it required two days to gather up the spoils. After Fulvius Nobilior conquered the Ætolians he brought Greek artists to Rome to arrange his festivities, and he exhibited five hundred and fifteen bronze and marble statues which he had taken from the defeated people. When Perseus of Macedon was overcome by Æmilius Paulus it required two hundred and fifty wagons to remove the pictures and statues alone which he displayed in his triumphal procession; among these treasures there was a statue of Athena by Phidias himself. This work of spoiling the Grecian cities which came into their power was diligently carried on by Mummius, Sulla, and others, until at length the Emperor Augustus removed many of the archaic sculptures to Rome. But the works which best pleased the Romans were those of the later school of Athens. The ruling gods at Rome were Mars, Bacchus, and Venus, and the statues of these deities were much valued.
So far, to the time of Augustus, the statues and other objects removed had been the spoils of war; but Caligula and Nero did not hesitate to go in times of peace and act the part of robbers. The first sent a consul in A.D. 31 with orders to bring the best works of art from Greece to Rome to adorn his villas; Nero went so far as to send his agents to bring even the images of the deities from the most sacred temples, together with the offerings made to them, for the decoration of his Golden House; it is said that from Delphi alone he received five hundred statues of bronze.
At first the larger number of these art spoils were so placed as to be constantly seen by the whole Roman people, and there is no doubt that their influence was very great and went far to refine their ideas and to prepare the way for the polish and grace of the Augustan age. Very soon the individual desire for works of art was felt, and wealthy men began to decorate their homes with pictures and statues; and at last these things were thought to be necessary to the proper enjoyment of life.
From all these causes there came about a revival of Greek art under the Romans, and in it many beautiful works were produced. Indeed, the greater portion of the sculptures which are now the pride of the collections all over Europe belong to this period. It cannot be said that the artists of this date originated much, but they followed the greatest masters that ever lived; and if they repeated their subjects they so changed them to suit the spirit of their time that they gave their works a certain effect of being something new, and threw their own individuality about them.
The list of names which can be given as belonging to Greek sculptors who worked at Rome is long, and would have little interest here. Instead of speaking of the artists I shall speak of the most famous works of the time which remain; most of these are so placed that they are seen by travellers, and have become familiar to all the world.
The beautiful statue which is known as the Venus de' Medici is so called because after its discovery it rested for a time in the Medici Palace in Rome. It was found in the seventeenth century in the Portico of Octavia at Rome, and was broken into eleven fragments. The arms from the elbows down are restored; when it was found it had traces of gilding on the hair; the ears are pierced, as if gold rings had sometimes been placed in them. In 1680 Duke Cosmo III. removed it to Florence, where it is the chief glory of the famous Tribune of the Uffizi Gallery. Many persons believe this to have been a copy of the renowned Cnidian Venus by Praxiteles, of which I have told you. This Venus de' Medici was the work of an Athenian artist named Cleomenes. He was the son of Apollodorus, a sculptor who lived in Rome in the first or second century of the Christian era. (Fig. 57.)
Fig. 57.—Venus de' Medici.
The aim of the sculptor was not to make a goddess, and his work lacks the dignity which was thrown around the more ancient statues of Venus. Cleomenes endeavored to produce a lovely woman in the youth of her beauty. Some critics believe that this Venus is intended to represent the moment when that goddess stood before Paris for judgment. If this story is not well known I will tell how when Peleus and Thetis were married they invited all the gods to their wedding save the goddess Discordia, and she was so offended by this slight that she threw into the midst of the assembly a golden apple on which were the words, "To the fairest." Juno, Minerva, and Venus all claimed it, and Jupiter sent Mercury to conduct these three beautiful goddesses to Paris, that he might decide to which it belonged. His decision gave the apple to Venus; and this so excited the jealousy and hatred of the others that a long list of serious troubles arose until Paris was driven out of Greece, and, going to the house of Menelaus, he saw and loved Helen, carried her off to Troy, and thus brought on the Trojan war of which the world has heard so much ever since. If I were writing a Sunday-school book I could draw many lessons from this story; but as I am only writing about art, I will go back and remind you that many persons try to study these old statues and to find out exactly what they mean; some such students say that the moment when Paris pronounced Venus to be the most lovely of the goddesses is the time represented by the sculptor of the Venus de' Medici.
As Venus was the goddess of Love and Beauty, it was natural that statues of her should be multiplied. The Chigi Venus in the Vatican has much the same pose as the Venus de' Medici, but she holds the end of a fringed garment in her hand. The Venus of the Capitol, in Rome, is larger than these; the Venus Callipiga, which was found in the Golden House of Nero, and is now in the Museum of Naples, is also worthy of being mentioned in company with these other exquisite sculptures.
However, there is yet another Venus more admirable and more praised than these. She is called the Venus of Milo, or Melos, and is in the gallery of the Louvre, at Paris. This statue is probably of a later date than those of which we have spoken, and is thought to be the work of Alexandros, the son of Menides of Antiocheia, or one of those sculptors who are called Asiatic Greeks. It is said that the base of this statue with the name of the artist upon it was destroyed, for the purpose of leading the King of France to believe it to be more ancient than it really is ([Fig. 58, frontispiece]).
This magnificent statue was discovered in 1820 by a peasant of the town of Melos, or Milo, on the island of the same name. It was in a niche of a wall which had long been buried. The Marquis of Rivière, who was the French Ambassador at Constantinople, purchased it and presented it to King Louis XVIII., who placed it in the Louvre. It is made from two blocks of marble joined above the drapery which envelops the legs. As the statue now stands it has the tip of the nose and the foot which projects beyond the drapery as they have been restored by modern artists.
This is the only Venus which has come down to us from the past which represents a goddess rather than a beautiful woman. The form has beauty of the highest type, but it has a grandeur which exalts it far above mere beauty. The pure, majestic expression of the head and face speak the calm dignity of a superior being. I shall quote from Perry, who says: "The Venus de Milo is justly admired, not only for the grandeur of its design, the perfection of its proportion, and the exquisite moulding of the superb and luxuriant form, but for the vivid freshness of the flesh and the velvet softness of the skin, in which it stands unrivalled in ancient and modern art. The extraordinary skill with which minute details, such as the folds of the skin in the neck, are harmonized with the ideal beauty of the whole is beyond all imitation and all praise. The life-like effect of this wonderful masterpiece is greatly enhanced by the rare and perfect preservation of the epidermis and by the beautiful warm, yellowish tinge which the lapse of centuries has given to the marble."
In the Museum at Naples is the Farnesian Hercules, which was found in the Baths of Caracalla, in Rome, in 1540. It was first placed in the Farnese Palace, and from that circumstance received the name by which it is known. It is the work of Glycon, an Athenian, and his name is inscribed upon it. There is little doubt that this is a copy of a more ancient statue by the great Lysippus; that master created representations of Hercules in all ages and forms. Glycon probably worked in the time of Hadrian; and though he copied the design and form of Lysippus, he exaggerated some points so as to injure the effect of the whole. For example, the head is small in proportion to the breadth of the breast and shoulders; and because Hercules was a swift runner the sculptor has made the legs too long to be natural. It is in such particulars as these that the decline of art may be traced, even in works that command admiration (Fig. 59).
Fig. 59.—The Farnesian Hercules.
The moment in which the god is represented is that which immediately followed his securing the apples of the Hesperides, the wedding present of Ge to Juno. Of all the labors of Hercules, perhaps this was the most arduous. Juno had left these apples with the Hesperides for safekeeping. These goddesses lived on Mount Atlas, and the serpent Ladon helped them to guard their precious trust. Hercules did not know just where the apples were kept, and this made his task all the more difficult. When, therefore, he arrived at Mount Atlas he offered to hold up the world for Atlas if he would go and fetch the apples. This Atlas did, but refused to take the weight from Hercules again. However, Hercules took the apples and hastened to his master, Eurystheus, with them. While performing this labor he had a terrible struggle with Ladon, and some accounts say that he killed the monster.
Now, the statue represents the god with the apples in his right hand, the world held on his back, while he leans heavily on his club covered with a lion's skin. All the muscles of his body are swollen from his struggle; his head droops, his whole expression of face and form is that of sadness and weariness. The youthfulness and strength with which the older sculptors invested him is not here. It is a splendid work, but it is not of the best; it belongs to an age when there was too much straining after effect, when the moderation of the best Greek masters did not satisfy the spirit of the time; and no sculptor lived whose power equalled that of Phidias or Lysippus.
Fig. 60.—The Apollo Belvedere.
There are some reliefs and vases of this Roman period that are very interesting. I shall speak of but one relief—the Sacrifice of Iphigenia, which is in Florence. It is called the work of Cleomenes, and his name is inscribed upon it; but there is some doubt as to the genuineness of the inscription. This relief is very beautiful. It represents a priest cutting off the hair of the lovely maiden as a preparation for her sacrifice.
The story runs that Iphigenia was the daughter of Agamemnon, who killed a hart sacred to Diana. To revenge this act the goddess becalmed the Greek fleet on its way to Aulis. The seer Calchas advised Agamemnon to sacrifice his daughter to appease Diana; this he consented to do, but Diana put a hart in the place of the maiden, whom she bore to Tauris and made a priestess. In this relief the maiden has an air of resigned grief; her father stands by himself with his head covered. The sculptor of this relief was not the first who had represented Agamemnon thus, for a painter, Timanthes, had made a picture of this subject about B.C. 400, and in describing it Quintilian said that "when he had painted Calchas sad, Ulysses sadder, and had represented in the face of Menelaus the most poignant grief that art can express, having exhausted the deepest feelings and finding no means of worthily portraying the countenance of the father, he covered his head and left it to every man's own heart to estimate his sufferings."
Fig. 61.—Head of Apollo Belvedere
Fig. 62.—The Steinhäuser Head.
I come now to the Apollo Belvedere, one of the most celebrated of all the statues in the Vatican, and the best known and most universally admired of all the ancient statues which remain to us. It was found at about the end of the fifteenth century at the ancient city of Antium, where it probably made one of the ornaments of the Imperial Palace. The authorities upon such subjects have never yet agreed as to whether the marble from which it is cut is a marble of Greece or of Italy (Fig. 60).
This statue has been lauded in all tongues of the civilized world, and nothing could be added to what has been said in its praise; and yet all who see it wish to exalt it still higher if possible. A few years ago another head of Apollo, of Greek marble, was found in a magazine in Rome, by Herr Steinhäuser, by whose name it is known; it is now in the museum at Basle (Figs. 61, 62).
Fig. 63.—The Stroganoff Apollo.
Though this statue has been so much studied and admired it has never yet been satisfactorily explained, and there are several important questions about it which cannot be answered with certainty. Nothing is known of its age or of the name of its sculptor. It is not described by any ancient writer, neither can any one say whether it is an original or a copy; and above all in importance is the question of what this beautiful young god is doing—what is the meaning of it?
The answers of the authorities to these queries vary so much that here I shall only mention the theory which I love, and which is accepted by many. When the statue was found the left hand was missing, and a bow was believed to have been the article which it held; and it was said that Apollo had just shot an arrow on some dreadful flight, and was watching for its effect. This theory was the principal one until 1860, when a scholar, Stephani, called attention to the fact that in St. Petersburg there is a bronze statuette, less than two feet high, which is almost exactly the same as the Apollo Belvedere—too nearly the same to be an accidental likeness. Now, as this is an antique bronze, it seems to prove that both it and the marble of the Vatican are copies of an ancient work. The statuette is called the Stroganoff Apollo, because it belongs to the collection of a nobleman of that name. It is believed to be one of a number of bronzes which were found near Janina in 1792, and given by the son of Ali Pasha to his physician, Dr. Frank (Fig. 63).
The chief importance of this discovery was the fact that the left hand was perfect, and did not hold a bow, but some soft, elastic substance which Stephani believes to be the ægis, or shield, of Jupiter, on which was the head of Medusa. The sight of this shield paralyzed those who saw it; and though it belonged to Jupiter and Minerva, Jupiter sometimes lent it to his son Apollo to aid him in his warfare; such instances are recorded by Homer. After Stephani had told his idea of it, the German scholar Ludwig Preller pointed out what seems to be the true meaning of it by suggesting that Apollo was extending this dreadful ægis before the sight of the Gauls at Delphi, in B.C. 279. History relates that when the Gauls approached Delphi the people asked the oracle if they should carry away and conceal the treasures of the temple. The oracle replied, "I myself and the White Maidens (meaning Athena and Artemis) will take care of that." Then four thousand Greeks stood by ready to defend the sacred place; but in the midst of the battle the youthful god came down through the roof of the temple, and the White Maidens left their own altars to aid him in driving back the barbarous foe. A great tempest arose, and rocks fell from Parnassus on the heads of the Gauls, and it seemed as if all the powers of heaven and earth had united to sustain the Greeks against their enemies. It is also written that the spectres of Greek heroes who had long been dead were seen in the midst of the battle dealing death upon the Gauls. But above all the fury of the tempest and the noise of war the clashing of the shield and spear of Athena and the twanging sound of the oft-discharged bow of Artemis were heard, while the flash of the awful shield of Apollo was seen to be even more vivid and terrific than the forked lightnings themselves.
It is recorded that after this victory two statues of Apollo and one each of Athena and Artemis were offered in the temple of Apollo as thank-offerings for its preservation and the victory over the Gauls. It is delightful to regard the Apollo Belvedere as a copy of one of these, and this view of it is most satisfying. Lübke, in speaking of this theory, says: "Not till now have we understood the Apollo Belvedere. In unveiled beauty we see the elegant form of the slender figure, the left shoulder only being covered by the chlamys, which falls down over the arm, which, far outstretched, holds the ægis with its Medusa head. The right arm is slightly turned aside, but both hands have been unskilfully restored. The attitude of the god is full of pathos, and is conceived at a dramatic moment. Ardently excited and filled with divine anger, with which is mingled a touch of triumphant scorn, the intellectual head is turned sideward, while the figure, with elastic step, is hastening forward. The eye seems to shoot forth lightning; there is an expression of contempt in the corners of the mouth, and the distended nostrils seem to breathe forth divine anger. It is a bold attitude thus transfixed in marble, full of life-like and excited action."
In the Iliad Homer describes the scene when Jupiter gave the ægis to Apollo, that he might put the Achæans to flight with it. In connection with the Apollo Belvedere it is well to recall that description which is thus translated by Lord Derby
"While Phœbus motionless his ægis held,
Thick flew the shafts, and fast the people fell
On either side; but when he turned its flash
Full in the faces of the astonished Greeks,
And shouted loud, their spirits within them quailed,
Their fiery courage borne in mind no more."
It is very interesting to know that many who believe that the Apollo Belvedere represents that god when terrifying the Gauls, believe also that the statues of the "White Maidens" rushing forth from their temples to aid him are in existence, the Artemis being the statue at the Louvre known as "Diane à la Biche" and the Minerva being the Athena with spear and shield in the museum of the Capitol at Rome.
Fig. 64.—Diane À La Biche.
Fig. 65.—Athena of the Capitol.
This statue of Artemis, or Diana, has been in France since the time of Henry IV. Formerly it was at Versailles, but is now one of the treasures of the Louvre. The left hand with the bow is restored. The effect of the figure is that of lightness combined with strength. She is going forward rapidly, with her eyes fixed on some distant object, and draws an arrow from her quiver even as she flies. This figure corresponds to the Apollo Belvedere in its spirit and apparent earnestness of purpose; it is of the same proportions, and in such details of treatment as the rich sandals it plainly belongs to the time and the school of the Apollo—indeed, there is no reason why it might not have formed a part of a group in which the Apollo stood. (Fig. 64.)
If we think of this Diana simply as an ideal huntress hastening to the chase the statue is very beautiful, and a remarkable example of such a subject; but when she is regarded as one of the "White Maidens" rushing forth to aid her brother in defending his temple against a barbarous enemy she is invested with a deeper interest; she becomes an important actor in a terrible drama, and those of us who could have no sympathy with her love for hunting are roused to an enthusiastic hope that she will succeed in doing her part to turn the savage foe away from the sacred hill of Pytho, and thus preserve its temple and its treasures.
The statue of Athena, advancing with spear and shield, is supposed to be a third member of the group which commemorated the victory over the Gauls. The position of the two goddesses would indicate that they were represented as hastening from opposite directions toward the Apollo Belvedere, the central figure of the whole. The whole bearing of this statue carries out the impression which Homer gives of the delight with which Athena led the Greeks to battle; she is full of eagerness, and rushes forward with the undaunted vigor of the confidence and courage of one who goes to fight for a just and holy cause (Fig. 65).
Whether this "Gallic theory," as it is called, concerning the Apollo, Diana, and Athena be correct or no, it is the most satisfactory in sentiment of any that has been advanced, and certainly, when we consider the three statues in this connection, there is nothing inharmonious in the supposition that they made the important parts of a whole which may have had many other figures of lesser importance in it.
There are many other statues of the Roman period in various museums, but I shall leave this part of our subject here, and speak briefly of the historical sculpture in the reliefs upon the triumphal arches of the Eternal City. In an age when martial glory was the chief desire of man, and among a people who accorded to successful generals the highest honors, it was most natural that the conquerors should desire to place some monument of their exploits where it would be constantly before the eyes of the people, and thus keep in perpetual remembrance their valiant deeds and their great successes.
Fig. 66.—Triumphal Procession from Arch of Titus.
We read that pictures of the foreign scenes of sieges and battles were displayed in public places in Rome at a very early date. We cannot find records of plastic works of this sort before the time of the emperors, but after such sculptures came into favor they were multiplied rapidly. The principal historical reliefs in Rome were upon the arches of Claudius, Titus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Septimius Severus, and on the architrave of the temple of Minerva in the Forum.
Of the arch of Claudius there are some remaining fragments of sculpture, now in the Villa Borghese. The arch of Titus was erected to celebrate the taking of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It was restored in 1822. The frieze represents both a triumphal procession and one of sacrifice. The picture we give here shows a company of warriors in the dress of peace, who bear articles of booty taken from the conquered city. They have the candelabra with seven branches, the table of the shew-bread, the silver trumpets, etc. This will give you a good idea of these reliefs. (Fig. 66.)
The arch of Trajan no longer stands, and its reliefs are now on the arch of Constantine; but Trajan's Pillar is one of the best preserved of all the antique monuments of Rome, and with some account of this column and a picture from it we will leave the historical sculptures of Rome. The Senate and people of Rome decreed that this column should be erected to the memory of Trajan, and it was in the centre of the Forum which bore the same name—the Forum Trajani. The column is about one hundred and six feet high, and originally was surmounted by a bronze statue of Trajan, which was replaced by one of St. Peter by Pope Sixtus V. A band of reliefs runs around this pillar in a spiral form; this band is six hundred feet long, and the sculptures represent Trajan's campaign against the Dacians. Many of the figures lose their effect on account of the height at which they are placed. There are more than a hundred scenes upon it, in which are about twenty-five hundred human figures, besides many horses and other objects. The whole is executed with the greatest care.
The real object of the whole work was to glorify the Emperor Trajan, and he is represented in many of the scenes; sometimes he is conducting engagements, storming a fort, or encouraging his troops; again he is holding an audience, protecting the women of a conquered city, or sitting in judgment on captives. Fig. 67 represents the Dacians assaulting a Roman fort. It is winter, and while some have crossed the ice in safety, others have broken through. Everything about it is represented in the most life-like and matter-of-fact manner, and this shows distinctly the principal difference between the Greek and the Roman art when the latter was not influenced by the former. It is pure, realistic, historical sculpture, and this pillar shows this at its very best estate; it is a splendid specimen of this kind of art. In all these many scenes there are but two mythological figures: one is Selene, used to represent Night, and the other is Jupiter tonans, who indicates Storm. But the correctness and elegance of the sculptures show what the Greek teaching did for the Romans; for it was to the Greeks that the latter owed their knowledge of the human form and their power to render it properly in sculpture.
Fig. 67.—From the Reliefs of Trajan's Column.
The last sort of ancient sculpture of which I shall speak is portrait sculpture, and perhaps this belongs also to historical sculpture, for it is by means of statues and busts that we know the faces and forms of many of the great men and women who hold their places in the regard of the world through all the centuries, because they were concerned in the events which make up what we call the history of the world. We have said that in Greece in very early times there were no portrait sculptures; gradually they were introduced until, in the time of Alexander, portrait statues were almost numberless, and these and busts were used for the decoration of libraries and public buildings, as well as for the adornment of squares and places of resort in the open air.
The finest life-size statue which remains from the Greeks is that of Sophocles, of which we give a picture (Fig. 68). It was not found until about 1839, and was presented to Pope Gregory XVI. by Cardinal Antonelli; it is in the museum of the Lateran. This engraving from it shows its beauties so well that it is scarcely needful to speak of it in detail. This statue is valuable not only as a portrait of Sophocles, but as a representation of a true product of the highest and best of Athenian civilization and culture; of an elegant, aristocratic man who was trained in gymnastic and warlike exercises which developed his physical parts, as well as in science, philosophy, and music—in various deep studies and lighter accomplishments which rendered him profound and scholarly, and at the same time elegant and graceful. "The attitude, though simple, is well chosen to show the most graceful lines of the figure; and the position of the arms—the one gracefully enveloped in the himation, and the other firmly planted on the hip—gives to the whole form an air of mingled ease and dignity. The face is handsome and full of winning grace, and bears the stamp not only of the creative genius of the poet, but of the experience of the active citizen; of one who has felt both the joys and the sufferings of human lot, and preserved amid them the constitutional calmness, the gentle benevolence, the tranquil, meditative piety for which he was renowned and loved by the people among whom he lived and sang."
Fig. 68.—Portrait Statue of Sophocles.
Fig. 69.—Statue of Augustus.
Among the Romans portrait sculpture held a position of importance. This people had always placed great value upon the likenesses of the dead, and from the earliest times had used different means of making them. In the very early days of the nation the custom prevailed of making masks of the faces of the dead in wax, and these masks were worn in the funeral procession by one of the mourners, who also wore the dress and insignia of the departed. The first aim in these masks was to have an exact resemblance to the dead; and this idea was carried on through all the eras of Roman art, and is a strong distinguishing feature between Greek and Roman sculpture; for while the Greeks wished to reproduce the face of one of whom they made a bust or statue, they did not hesitate to idealize that face; but the Romans labored to make an exact likeness of the man, leaving him in his statue as nothing more than he looked to be. This manner of portraiture often does great injustice to its model, for the changing expressions which come with emotions and with conversation often illuminate the plainest faces with a rare beauty; therefore the aim of portraiture should be to give the very most and best that can be imagined as coming to the face which is reproduced.
I can speak of but a few of the almost numberless Roman portrait sculptures.
This statue of Augustus was found in 1863 in a villa built by his wife, Livia, about nine miles from Rome, at Porta Prima. It is a noble work, and every minute detail of the ornamentation has a force and meaning that can be explained. At the same time the whole work is full of strength and dignity, which comes from the character of the man himself, and is in no sense dependent on all the emblems of his rank and power, with which the dress is loaded (Fig. 69). This statue is in the Vatican, and there one can compare it with the exquisite bust known as the "Young Augustus" and with the statue of the emperor when aged, in which he is veiled as a priest. The study of these three sculptures, thus fortunately near each other, is most interesting.
Fig. 70.—Agrippina the Elder.
The Roman women who held important positions were frequently honored with statues. Among those that remain none is more interesting than this of the elder Agrippina. She was a woman of great strength and equally great purity of character, and as we study this statue we can easily understand that she could perform the duties of a general when occasion demanded this service, and when that necessity was past could nurse the sick and wounded with all the tenderness of a true womanly nature. It is in every way a noble work of art, combining grace, dignity, and the aristocratic refinement of a high-born lady. The drapery of this and other similar statues is very beautiful, and fully satisfies all artistic demands. We have full proof that such garments were in actual use by the women of Greece and Rome (Fig. 70).
It was not unusual for the great men and women of Rome to be represented in portrait statues with the attributes of gods and goddesses. Livia appears as Ceres, Julia as Flora, and so on; and during the best days of Roman art these statues were very beautiful. But at last they, like all other sculptures, grew less and less worthy, until they became positively absurd, and lacked any power to command our admiration.
What is thus true of portrait sculpture is true of all Roman art. Its decline kept step with the decline of the nation, and both fell at length into a pitiable state of feebleness and corruption. From this we are glad to turn to the study of Christian art, which, even in its primary struggles, when groping its way through ignorance and helplessness, was still a living thing, and held the promise of a new life—a renaissance of that which had gradually died in Greece and Rome.
